The difficulties are compounding. Interesting times we live in. The huge corporate land owners with ensure net export, but the people will get poorer and have less representation in legislative decision making.
Discussion
All sorts of regressive legislation coming from them.
CARB already requires all construction power equipment to be registered (for a fee) with the state for emissions purposes.
Small contractors are at a disadvantage because they must do more paperwork while big companies with compliance departments are more effective.
Indeed. This legislation for 2024 attempts to regulate every heavy tractor in the country, and charge them a per tractor fee for doing so. Apparently the fee schedule was defeated in court, and enactment delayed. Emissions have come an amazing distance in the last 30 years, and while generally I support legislation that protects the air we breathe and live in, the engines to meet these more stringent NOX emissions doesn’t exist. Electric heavy vehicles aren’t yet a viable option, and the life cycle emissions are not much better, particularly when consideration of electrical energy generation sources are taken in to account. Anyway, my simple note agreeing with you turned into a rant. It all looks like an agenda to push electric vehicle technology, and it’s likely a few people’s well placed investments in electrical vehicle resources driving the legislation. It’s likely not about the well being of people or our environment.
the only thing green energy does is shift the fumes to another place, and always increases them substantially in net
electric cars smell less, and make less noise, but hybrids get better mileage, and don't even need non-extinguishable, fire-prone lithium batteries
now that i live in a windy, very hilly landscape, i'm of the opinion that for this environment, hybrids and electrics are awesome, and partly because of the noise factor, but partly because of the smell, but the wind takes that damage out pretty good
for all cases, i think hybrids are the best, using diesel engines, and this is the rightful place to put garbage like rapeseed oil and sunflower seed oil, not in our food, and use the mineral diesel for use cases that are far from people, eg boats, trains and aircraft
and i also think that steel rails are far more efficient, quiet and low maintenance than asphalt roads, but they are not so good on hills
electric trains are much higher maintenance and net cost than diesels
any answer to things that doesn't take into account the circumstances that the technology is to be applied in is an incomplete answer
Agree. Fully electric cars make sense in an urban environment, where freight is concerned the grid simply doesn’t have the capacity. Rail is already electric, powered by diesel; there is no easier scenario for grid electrification than rail, the problem is scale. Trains use a phenomenal amount of power, one engine can use as much as 13,400kw. I don’t see many one engine freight trains here in the western US, and that is one train. We just don’t have the production capacity or the infrastructure to support freight motivation by electricity.
Another problem is that electric power transmission is extremely inefficient. Transform voltages up, transform them down, losses through every transformation and there is no way to store AC power, if the generation stops, so does the grid. Just imagine the mess that would ensue through a blackout or even the random outage.
yeah, diesel on rails is the way for freight imo
and diesel on ships
in the city hybrid 4 cylinder diesels with supercaps and 6cyl power for short bursts on the electric for longer runs and short runs can be straight electric
without the distortions of government redistribution we'd be using the most efficient systems
really the energy problem is a government problem
💯….and without stepping into the climate change debate, if atmospheric CO2 is/becomes a problem we have the technology to synthesize hydrocarbons out of atmospheric carbon from renewable energy sources. Hydrocarbons are absolutely the most energy dense way to store and utilize hydrogen energy we are currently aware of.
atmospheric CO2 is at its lowest level in a long time, and every indoor pot grower knows it, and you know your grower knows it if your flowers are dank because you can't get dank flowers without CO2 at 2-3x *urban* atmospheric levels
oh and also to note that hemoglobin requires CO2 to release O2, look up hypocapnia
I certainly understand the CO2 hemoglobin association, I try to utilize EIB when under heavy physical exertion. My opinion is that 400 ppm is not great for the planet, and that the oceans are absorbing the CO2 and shifting pH as a result. I think digging sequestered substances out of the earth that have been there for the millions of years life evolved on the planet and vaporizing them into the atmosphere is generally a bad idea. Everyone has peer reviewed papers to cite, most people don’t want to feel guilt about flying to a tropical paradise for vacation, or be motivated to modify their lifestyle. It probably doesn’t matter to anyone alive now, or the next ten generations. For some people outrage about obtuse problems is addictive, and provides provocation for casting dissent on people who make alternative life choices. Personally, I am not without culpability. My industrial contribution burned 600,000 gallons of diesel a year, that’s nothing compared to some, but seems like a lot to me now, no emissions equipment, just sulphuric and NOX compounds creating acid rain. I’m glad changes are being made, this planet is beautiful.
but CO2 is not the problem
it is safe for us and for animals and for the planet at least 3x current levels, there is no reason to think that it causes a problem
our lungs typically have much higher levels than even that during healthy respiration
one of the first things you notice about evil people is they are always looking for someone else to blame
in this case, they have been tampering with the weather for a long time
i just saw recently some flurry about a hotspot that has been developing in the upper atmosphere over the north pole recently, a pattern that has been associated with a sudden cold snap blasting blizzards across the two northern continents
there is also massive radio arrays in alaska and in several locations across the USA and across the vast northern country of russia that are known to be microwave emitters and it is also known that certain frequencies of microwave radiation can induce heat in certain kinds of gases, such as 20ghz and oxygen
using this and who knows what other technologies as a weapon in military activities needs a cover story for when it fails - and for when it succeeds, and what better cover story than to blame literally everyone for the tampering of a small number of individuals who are doing this for "national security"
it's also quite a handy scapegoat for people who own investments in marginal new energy technologies, who have connections in the banking and media establishment, and the amount of centralization of the control of these organisations was on display 2020-2022 and if you don't see the connection, well, i dunno what to say, i haven't got any more time to explain it
I don’t disagree entirely, I do think it important to consider that we as macro fauna are more tolerant to shifts in atmospheric concentrations, but we are dependent on a food web like every other living thing on the planet. The ocean is an enormous food web, and of course I wasn’t there 250 million years ago to witness the Permian extinction, but it seems plausible that volcanic activity caused a crash in oceanic food webs, leading to massive mortality, carcasses sank, methanogenic bacteria in the depths metabolized the nutrients into H2S, poisoning everything that breathes atmosphere. Whew! I keep saltwater aquariums and when H2S starts being produced because of a large death in the tank, you certainly know it. The microbes always react the fastest to environmental changes. I actually found one of those massive arrays while exploring Eastern Oregon one time. It was actually pretty spooky, no one there, but not abandoned either.
there's a huge gulf of chemical property differences between hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide, or for that matter nitrogen oxide versus nitric oxide versus ammonia
carbon dioxide is not very soluble in water, and even less soluble in brine, and its optimal solubility is achieved at around 4'C and at several atmospheres of pressure
being that the pressure at the surface of contact between the air and the sea is literally one atmosphere (virtually the definition of it) this means that as a gas that modifies sea pH, it has a trivial, trivial trivial contribution to any changes in the sea pH, unless somehow gravity suddenly increased and the pressure increased and it became more soluble, or the temperature dropped to an average of 4'C in the ocean, and somehow the salinity dropped as well
hydrogen sulfide, on the other hand, is far more soluble in sea temperature water at 1 atmosphere, as are many of those nitrogen compounds
methane, also, is highly questionable as a serious danger because, first of all, it tends to rise as it is lower density, and because it is prone to oxidation, it is prone to converting into CO2 once it gets into the UV and ionising radiation regions in the upper atmosphere like the ionosphere, which is well above the part where total internal reflection causes the greenhouse effect
further, CO2 is heavier than air, so as soon as that methane rises and bumps into O3 and reacts due to some additional IR, the reaction product is 2x H2O and 1x CO2
Water is the most potent greenhouse gas, far beyond any of the others, because it has the highest latent heat capacity, and that property is predicated upon its capacity to form hydrogen bonds with itself, which we see as surface tension in the liquid phase, and refraction in the gas
methane combustion produces twice as much water as CO2, but that's a bit inconvenient for the climate cult because water also stabilises temperature, as it holds huge amounts of thermal energy in its orbit, and thus naturally reaches an equilibrium in the atmosphere that combined with sufficient atmospheric volume and magnetic field from the core of the planet protects us from radiation and enables us to live long enough without mutations to our stem cells that large life forms can flourish on the surface
every sign we see around us suggests that the planet is highly metastable and that only large external influences can cause catastrophes, such as comet and meteor strikes, solar fluctuations and gravity effects from alignments of orbits
humans are also a tiny fraction of life on this planet, indeed within our bodies our cells aren't even the majority!
all this doomsday shit is just by way of convincing people to tolerate the impoverishment of devaluation of their money, and that's why Bitcoin is so important
Your knowledge is impressive, I don’t see the relevance to the point I was making however. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, to me it’s like saying that we could mine all the arsenic or uranium in the earth’s crust, aerosolize it into the atmosphere and have there be no lasting effects for life on this planet. We can agree to disagree, it’s cool. I still really enjoy the discourse. I still vacation in tropical locations. 🤘🏻😊